FirePro M2000 vs GeForce GT 630
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 630 with FirePro M2000, including specs and performance data.
GT 630 outperforms M2000 by an impressive 61% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 971 | 1133 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.08 | no data |
Power efficiency | 1.92 | 2.34 |
Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
GPU code name | GF108 | Turks |
Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
Release date | 15 May 2012 (13 years ago) | 1 July 2012 (13 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $99.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 480 |
Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 500 MHz |
Number of transistors | 585 million | 716 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 33 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 12.96 | 12.00 |
Floating-point processing power | 0.311 TFLOPS | 0.48 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 4 | 8 |
TMUs | 16 | 24 |
L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
Bus support | no data | n/a |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 145 mm | no data |
Width | 1-slot | no data |
Form factor | no data | chip-down |
Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 800 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
Shared memory | no data | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
HDMI | + | - |
StereoOutput3D | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
CUDA | 2.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
900p | 14−16
+55.6%
| 9
−55.6%
|
Full HD | 24−27
+50%
| 16
−50%
|
Cost per frame, $
1080p | 4.17 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how GT 630 and FirePro M2000 compete in popular games:
- GT 630 is 56% faster in 900p
- GT 630 is 50% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 42 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 1.55 | 0.96 |
Recency | 15 May 2012 | 1 July 2012 |
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 33 Watt |
GT 630 has a 61.5% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
FirePro M2000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 month, and 97% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 630 is a desktop graphics card while FirePro M2000 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.